I had not previously mentioned Ron Paul. It is difficult to address just how far from rational his positions are, without giving them far more attention than they deserve. In short, however, his views on National Security show he is more in line with Michael Moore than Bill Roggio, his sense of the War in Iraq shows he is more in tune with Alec Baldwin than General Petraeus, and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman. At best, Congressman Ron Paul is sadly uneducated and misguided. At worst, he is dangerously unbalanced.

Everything in this paragraph is 100% incorrect. Where are you getting this "information"? Take a few moments to research your subject, why don't you. Wow.

This could be fun. OK, swf, how about you make a case for Congressman Ron? And do support your contentions, please, since you are so emphatic about "research".

thanks for pointing out no one is owed a vote.
the rnc doesn't get this point.
you're lucky to have a lab and a collie.

How about Ann Coulter, for VP, or AG. That'll be sure to get Kennedy, Murtha etc hitting the sauce before their typical noon cocktail hr. I would love to see her as Press Secretary.

I don't usually plug my own site here, Dave, but if you want to see my dogs, go to

http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com

The dogs are my title banner. And yes, I am lucky, they're both great dogs!

ok, just for starters...

his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman.

http://powderbluereport.blogspot.com/2006/11/ron-paul-tribute-to-milton-friedman.html

"We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils." -- Ron Paul (11/20/06)

Strike one, swf. Just because he praises Friedman, does not mean Paul understands him or follows his precepts. Paul opposes globalization, for example, something strongly promoted by Friedman. Friedman understood that gold is only one commodity and is used only as a hedge against inflation, while Paul wants to base our economy on it. Friedman understood deficit spending is sometimes the appropriate measure for a government to shake a recession, while Paul opposes it in all instances.

Care to try again?

Karl Marx..wtf? Paul = Von Mises, Friedman, Rothbard and Says - you've been hitting too much of those Keynesian crosses bro! S'ok though - we can learn ya :)

Back it up then, Aaron. After all, Obama praised Reagan, but no one would confuse Barack for a Reaganite by his policies.

Paul may 'talk' Friedman, but his policies are pure Luddite!

Just because he praises Friedman, does not mean Paul understands him or follows his precepts. Paul opposes globalization, for example, something strongly promoted by Friedman.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

"Paul deplores the federal deficit, but insists the only way "to solve that problem is to cut spending, not to raise taxes -- or to not lower taxes when you get a chance." As a first step he advocates the elimination of all taxes on capital -- estates, capital gains, interest income, and dividends. ...

he out-Reagans Reagan in his unwavering opposition to the government regulation of business. He may have seemed like a nut when he was one of only three congressmen to vote against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. But weren't the real nuts the conservative congressmen who got swept up in a witch-hunt against "corporate crooks," and voted to impose the most sweeping, burdensome, anti-competitive, and costly financial regulation in a generation?

Paul is an advocate of free trade -- to a fault. He believes deeply in unrestricted trade between people and nations. Yet he votes against free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA because he believes that trade is a right, not a gift for Congress to bestow in certain circumstances. Without such agreements, the reality is that trade is probably less free than it is with them. Is Paul a nut for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Perhaps, but for Paul it's a point of principle. He told me, "I don't call them free-trade agreements; I call them managed trade agreements." Instead, Paul would like to see a simple policy of "low and uniform" tariffs for all products from all nations.

Perhaps the most unusual element of Paulonomics is the idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve." -- Don Luskin

https://www.reason.com/news/show/38384.html

"Reason: But it would be preferable to abolish the Fed entirely and just have government stick to a monetary growth rule?

[Milton] Friedman: Yes, it's preferable."

DJ lives in Texas?

Luddite? Not quite sure how so but would be interested in your expouding upon that assertation!

See Paul's Economic Plan - below is from section 3: Monetary Policy -

3. Monetary Policy Reform

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve
Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

It's much easier to say "return to the gold standard" than to introduce the idea of competing currencies - can you image McCanekilledAbel trying to understand that concept!!! Wowwee..that would've been fun!

"and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman"

You'll never live this one down, unfortunately. Your grandchildren will be hearing about the time their grandpa made the most ignorant comment ever posted about a presidential candidate on the internet.

This is all rehash, but given all the blind support for any person who gets the Republican nomination I might vote for McCain just to help prove how bad an idea that is. Yes, the democrats will be a disaster, but that's what's needed to wake up the American electorate and sweep the democrats from power. Then and only then can America move forward as the leader of the free world.

Lots of assertions, but still no back-up. Here's a clue - Paul is not a suitable authority to legitimize his own claims!

Let's start with the deficit. Do you know what Adam Smith said about Trade Deficits? It's not what Paul says!

As to gold, a history question not for debate but one you should look up, is why did EVERY nation on the planet abandon the 'gold standard'? Hint - it's the same reason mercantilism is a failure. I also find it amusing that none of the Paulites explains how enough gold will be made available to meet the economic demands, or how - given his 'you cannot fight the laws of economics' - Paul seriously thinks he can control the conomy through subjective imposition of a control commodity.

Asinine, at best.

I also note the only defense presented by the Paulites is a weak economic argument. I guess you accept the points regarding Paul's foreign policy resume and defense positions. That at least is wise ...

I will give you this - in ideal, Paul is much closer to Menger than Marx, though I suspect you are confusing Marx's teachings with Lenin in their practice.

Clueless for McCain: "I am not one of those screaming extremists who would pretend that a Democrat in the White House is anything but a catastrophe and a direct threat to the ideals of America."

You really don't see the irony of you spitting out "screaming extremists" at those who say they will not support McCain. It doesn't even register as a bit hypocritical that your previous criticisms of McCain, which you proudly admit to owning are now screaming extremism, patriotism questioning and reputation trashing.

It's clear where the spit is coming from and who is on the edge of an anger induced stroke. McCain denialists are not the ones who are freaking out. They are making a sober assessment of the direction their current political party is taking and using an otherwise losing vote to influence that direction.

Talk about selective attention, mikey.

Go look up 'context'.

and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman.

Well, I'll be doggoned. Hayek and Von Mises are Marxists? I learn something new every day on internet.

Excuse me while I indulge in a huge belly laugh.

Before I go, let me point out that the major difference between Friedman and Hayek and Von Mises is that Friedman was a monetarist. He supported centralized control (recognize the Marxist language--"central control?" ) of the value of currency via the Federal Reserve--as long as the Reserve would act within certain bounds. Sadly, as is true of all central planners, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve--being fallible human beings--resorts to expediency over adherence to principle (Friedman's prohibition on more than 3% growth in the money supply) That's why one of the tenets of Conservatism has been the absolute need for checks and balances in every realm--which central control does not provide-- because we are fallible human beings who cannot be perfected while on this earth.

So, I would revise your sentence as follows:

"and his views on the Economy, with respect to monetary policy, show Milton Friedman to be far more aligned with Karl Marx than Hayek, Von Mises--or Dr. Ron Paul."

Oh, did I mention the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto?

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly

Since you are having trouble understanding how claiming to be Friedman is a bit off from actually pursuing his policies, let me ask you a simple question, Jerri - why do people but Treasury Bonds?

If you understand this, you'll already be ahead of Ron Paul.

"A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." -- Milton Friedman

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

Besides, Ron Paul is not calling for a return to the gold standard, but simply to allow competing currencies (including gold and silver)....

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity

"Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins."

While Paul believes it was a mistake to abandon the gold standard, I don't think you'll find anything in his campaign platform calling for a return to it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

"...as a first step toward eliminating the Fed, Paul advocates "legalizing competition -- allow gold and silver to circulate with the dollar, and take off all the taxes on gold and silver money."

Ah, gold! The mere mention of it in today's modern economy brands you as a nut, or at least an economic hick. But remember, American money was linked to gold in one way or another for most of our history, until 1971 in fact. In his first year in office as president, Ronald Reagan established a blue-ribbon commission to investigate a possible return to gold. It went nowhere, but was Reagan a nut to ask the question? More fundamentally, is there anything nutty about money that would be, as Paul advocates, "convertible and redeemable in something of real value"?" -- Don Luskin

As for foreign policy, if you're in favor of undeclared, unconstitutional, "preemptive" wars that kill and maim thousands of american soldiers and close to a million Iraqis (not to mention sqandering billions of tax dollars) -- I can't help you there. McCain is your man. Even your dog has more sense than that.

swf, at last the colors come out.

"undeclared" - Congress passed the resolution authorizing the war. And repeatedly funded it. Also, the UN passed a resolution which authorized the resumption of hostilities. So, your claim there is bogus.

"unconstitutional" - sorry, but just because you do not like a war, does not make it 'unconstitutional', especially given the extraordinary steps taken by Bush to involve all stakeholders.

"pre-emptive" - yet another fave lie from the Left. The war was a resumption from the first Gulf War, and Iraq repeatedly violated key provisions of the cease-fire.

'killing and maiming' - 50 million people freed in 2 countries, versus the rape rooms, torture prisons and mass graves under the old regimes. It says something when someone sides with the monsters, just because their BDS has gotten too extreme to control anymore.

This was a good war. Unpopular, but the right thing to do even so. I am truly sad for you, that you cannot understand this basic fact.

"Since you are having trouble understanding how claiming to be Friedman is a bit off from actually pursuing his policies, let me ask you a simple question, Jerri - why do people but Treasury Bonds?"

What? I don't understand your comment. I was responding to your claim that Ron Paul's positions are Marxist as opposed to being in alignment with Milton Friedman (whom I assumed you consider to be free enterprise--which he was except in monetary policy).

I will make one observation on the issue of treasury securities. Abu Dhabi recently "invested in" (bailed out), Citicorp rather than buying treasury securities. They chose to put their money in a failing bank over U.S. Treasuries, based on an argument that they were "diversifying". So, they found a failing bank a more attractive investment than U.S. Treasuries. I find that disturbing.

Ok, I think my dog is better than John McCain too, but then my dog isn't old enough to qualify as president. (He is only 3, or 21 in dog years).

I might make a better President than McCain, but I am not sure about it. I do know that I would be head and shoulders above hillary or Obama.

I agree with DJ. SVF's true colors have come to the surface. GW hatred is the main motivator for all actions by the left and most Paulites. ww

As a Christian I am constantly amazed with the conservative Christians who are gung ho for an unprovoked, immoral, unethical, un-just-by-every-measure-of-the-theory war. Amazing...tell me DJ - who would Jesus bomb?

Nice duck, Aaron. Before you judge, ask yourself how you will justify your own hatred?

And how is it 'just' to stand for the dictators, the torture rooms, the groups of men who drag women off the street to rape and kill, and who cut the heads off victims on TV to promote their agenda?

THOSE are the people you stand by.

This was a good war. Unpopular, but the right thing to do even so.

I am sad for you too, sir.

And by the way, noted "leftist" Pat Buchanan also disagrees with you...

"Is the United States about to launch a second preemptive war, against a nation that has not attacked us, to deprive it of weapons of mass destruction that it does not have? ...

Congress thus has the time to do the constitutional duty it failed to do when it gave Bush his blank check to invade Iraq at a time of his choosing. ...

The "Bush Doctrine" notwithstanding, if Congress has not put the "military option on the table," neither George Bush nor John McCain can put it there. That is the Constitution still, is it not?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan35.html

Citibank is a "failing bank"?!?!?!?!?!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

OK Jerri, Treasuries were too complex for you. I will try to make the Citibank deal even easier for you.

Do you ever buy things on sale?

DJ - I don't hate anyone...not sure how you inferred that from any of my posts...

The deal is though, brother, that these types of atrocities occur around the globe all the time...why are we not in Kenya at this moment? why not China where there are forced abortions, etc? How about Saudi Arabia where a female who commits adultry is put to death, young girls set on fire for disobeying their fathers? Why not Darfur?

And exactly how does that correlate to a Marxist monetary policy? Still waiting....

my posts are now being moderated? hmmm... vast anti-Ron Paul conspiracy alert!!!!! (sarcasm)

So, Aaron says if you can't help everyone, you should not help anyone.

You still have not explained how supporting Saddam and Al Qaeda is 'just'.